CJ 5661 
. B7 

Copy 1 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 
AND MONOGRAPHS 

No. 17 



SIX ROMAN BRONZE MEDALLIONS 

By AGNES BALDWIN 


THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY 
BROADWAY AT 156TH STREET 
NEW YORK 

1923 




PUBLICATIONS 


The American Journal of Numismatics, 
1866-1920. 

Monthly, May, 1866—April, 1870. 

Quarterly, July, 1870—October, 1912. 

Annual, 1913-1920. 

With many plates, illustrations, maps and 
tables. Less than a dozen complete sets of 
the Journal remain on hand. Prices on ap¬ 
plication. Those wishing to fill broken sets 
can secure most of the needed volumes sep¬ 
arately. An index to the first 50 volumes 
has been issued as a part of Volume 51. It 
may also be purchased as a reprint for $3.00. 


The American Numismatic Society. Catalogue 
of the International Exhibition of Contempo- 
ary Medals. March, 1910. Revised edi¬ 
tion. New York. 1911. xxxvi, 412 pages, 
512 illustrations. $10.00. 

The American Numismatic Society. Exhibition 
of United States and Colonial Coins. 1914. 
vii, 134 pages, 40 plates. $1.00. 



NUMISMATIC 

NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS 


Editor : Sydney P. Noe 


Numismatic Notes and Monographs 
is devoted to essays and treatises on sub¬ 
jects relating to coins, paper money, 
medals and decorations, and is uniform 
with Hispanic Notes and Monographs 
published by the Hispanic Society of 
America, and with Indian Notes and 
Monographs issued by the Museum of the 
American Indian—Heye Foundation. 


SIX ROMAN BRONZE MEDALLIONS 


BY 

AGNES BALDWIN 




THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY 
BROADWAY AT 156th STREET 
NEW YORK 
1923 




COPYRIGHT 1923 BY 

THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY 


Press of Patterson & White Co., Philadelphia 


© Cl A710588 


f 



1 

SIX ROMAN BRONZE 

MEDALLIONS 

MEDALLION OF MANTINEA, ARCADIA 

Antinous, Died 130 a.d. 

1. Obv. betoy, on 1. upwards,— pioc, 
on r. downwards (Vetourios). Bust of 
Antinous to left, head inclined slightly 
downwards, shoulders bare; border of 
dots. 

Rev. toic, above,— apkaci, on r. 
downwards, “to the Arcadians.” 
Horse advancing to the right on ex- 
ergual line, left foreleg raised: border 
of dots. 

,E medallion, 41 mm. 39.30 gr., dark 
green patination. Pierpont Morgan 
Coll, (formerly Martinetti and Ner- 
vegna Coll., Cat. No. 2051). Plate I. 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 



V A 








2 

ROMAN BRONZE 


This Antinous medallion of Veturius 
with bust to the left is apparently a new 
example which has not been published. 
It is not illustrated in the Martinetti 
Catalogue nor described as to weight and 
size, but as the other bronze medallions 
in the Pierpont Morgan Collection are all 
from this source, this is presumably the 
piece described under No. 2051 of the 
catalogue. 

It is a remarkably fine piece and the 
portrait is quite similar to that of the 
medallions of Corinth (Achaean Confed¬ 
eration) and of Chalcedon (G. Blum, 
Jour. Internat., PI. i, 14 and PI. iii, 
9), which represent Antinous with broad 
shoulders and bust of rather heavy pro¬ 
portions, bare, three-quarters to the left, 
and with head in profile. The medallion 
of Corinth with the head tilted slightly 
downwards is a closer parallel than the 
Chalcedonian piece. On the present 
piece the head is still further inclined, a 
pose which gives to the portrait a grave 
and reflective expression. The beautiful 
Arcadian medallion now in the British 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 







MEDALLIONS 


Museum ( B . M. Cat. Peloponnesus, PI. 
xxxiii, i, bust to the r.) obtains this same 
effect by a slightly different means, 
namely, by the left shoulder being also 
raised. One may safely assume these 
broad, bare busts on the medallions to 
have been inspired from sculpture, prob¬ 
ably a bas-relief of which there were 
many in ancient times as the numerous 
survivals indicate. 

The Antinous medallions constitute 
the grand exception to the rule, that only 
the emperor’s portrait or that of mem¬ 
bers of his family could be placed upon 
the regular coinage or the medallions, 
whether issued by the Roman emperors 
in the capital itself or by local authorities 
in the Greek provinces. There are only 
a few issues among the copper coins 
struck in the Greek cities under Roman 
rule which bear types other than imperial 
portraits. These types are occasionally 
a local god or hero, but usually personi¬ 
fications such as the city-goddess TTXH, 
the Demos IEPOG AHMOC, the Senate 
IEPA CYNKAIITOC, or Boule IEPA 


AND MONOGRAPHS 









4 

ROMAN BRONZE 


BOYAH. The majority of these are les¬ 
ser issues of a very moderate size. An 
exceptional piece of this class is the large 
bronze piece of Sardes (B. M. Cat. 
Lydia, PI. xxvi, i) with the head of the 
city-goddess, Sardis, veiled and turreted 
on the obverse. Other cities of Lydia, 
Saitta, Thyatira and Tralles issued coins 
of the “first bronze” size with the head 
of the Senate personified as a youth or 
as a veiled woman. 

It is to this class of coins, imperial 
issues of the Greek cities of the empire, 
which by exception do not bear heads 
of the emperors or their families, that 
the Antinous medallions belong. Proof 
of this may be found in the fact that 
bronze coins of the ordinary small sizes 
bear Antinous heads, e. g., coins of 
Sardes ( B. M. Cat. Lydia, PI. xxvi, io), 
of Nicopolis in Epirus (G. Blum, Jour. 
Internat., 1914, PI. i, 1), the reverse bear¬ 
ing the ethnic just like the ordinary 
numismatic issues (cf. B. M. Cat. Thes¬ 
saly, PI. xix, 16, a Nicopolis coin with an 
entirely similar reverse to the Antinous 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 







MEDALLIONS 

5 

coin, but bearing the head of Philip, Sr.). 
This is especially clear in the case of the 
Egyptian coinage of Alexandria which, 
as the country of Antinous’ death and of 
his immediate deification, commemorated 
the dead hero with abundant issues. 
There are a great variety of reverse dies 
in the Alexandria issues, and the same is 
true of the emissions of Tarsus, Bithyn- 
ium and Smyrna. 

One must not be misled, therefore, by 
the appearance of our medallion, its fine 
style and medallic character, its inscrip¬ 
tion BETOYPIOG TOIG APKAGI, 
“Veturius (sc. aveO^xe), dedicated (t. e., 
the issue) to the Arcadians,” into regard¬ 
ing it as a true medal. For examples 
are quite frequent on the regular bronze 
coinage of Imperial times in the Province 
of Asia, where the formula <xved7)xe, at 
times coupled with the formula, a[T7)<ja- 
aevo<; or atTTja^evoo, “at the request of,” 
is used by the civic magistrates or some 
private individual holding a municipal 
or priestly office. On the medallions of 
Antinous the following formulae occur: 


AND MONOGRAPHS 







6 

ROMAN BRONZE 


IloXejjuiJv aveOT)xe S(ju>pvacoi?, at Smyrna, 
'Ogti'Xco? MapxeXXo? io\q ’A^atoc? ave- 
0 Y)xe at Corinth (Achaean Koinon), ’Api<y- 
TOTtjxo^ av£ 0 r,xsv Upsu? at Delphi; and on 
the following medallions, av£ 07 ]xe is to be 
understood; Teato? toi? ’ASpajjLUTTjvot?, 
Adramyteum, To6Xio<; SaTopvcvo? ’Avxupa- 
voc$, Ancyra, and Ttctccov XaXxaoovcoc;, 
Chalcedon, just as on the Arcadian piece. 
These individuals who dedicated an issue 
of coins or medallions probably paid for 
the expenses incidental to a new issue 
as an acknowledgment of their political 
or religious honors. Polemon of Smyrna 
has been identified with M. Antonius 
Polemon, who obtained a rich donation 
for Smyrna from Hadrian. He was a 
Strategos of Smyrna as the coins tell us 
( B. M. Cat. Ionia, p. 277). Aristotimus 
and Hostilius Marcellus were priests, 
the former high-priest at Delphi (G. 
Blum, /. c., p. 61) : the latter is desig¬ 
nated “priest of Antinous” on one me¬ 
dallion. Veturius, whose name appears 
on all the Arcadian medallions of An¬ 
tinous, is otherwise unknown but was 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 











MEDALLIONS 

7 

probably like the other dedicators, an 
influential citizen holding some civic of¬ 
fice, who defrayed in whole or in part the 
expenses of' the new issue, perhaps 
merely the initial cost of engraving the 
die, just as a private individual today 
may be responsible for the issue of a 
medal. 

The occasion on which these special 
issues were made was doubtless a festival 
held in honor of the dead hero. This 
seems particularly confirmed by the Ar¬ 
cadian medallions, for Pausanias (Bk. 
VIII, 9. 4) mentions an annual festival 
and games every fourth year in honor of 
Antinous at Mantinea, where conse¬ 
quently it may be inferred that these me¬ 
dallions were struck. The passage is one 
of the chief sources for the subject and 
bears directly on this medallion. Hence 
it may be quoted at length from Frazer’s 
translation, Pausanias’ Description of 
Greece, Vol. 1, p. 384 f. “Antinous is 
esteemed by them a god, and his temple 
is the newest at Mantinea. The Em¬ 
peror Hadrian was exceedingly at- 


AND MONOGRAPHS 







8 

ROMAN BRONZE 


tached to him. I never saw him in 
life, but I have seen statues and paintings 
of him. An Egyptian city on the 
Nile is named after Antinous, 1 and he 
receives homage in other places. The 
reason why he is honored in Mantinea 
is this: Antinous was a native of 
Bithynium, on the river Sangarius, and 
the Bithynians are descended from Ar¬ 
cadians of Mantinea. Therefore the 
Emperor established his worship in Man¬ 
tinea also and mysteries are celebrated in 
his honor every year, and games every 
fourth year. 2 In the gymnasium at 
Mantinea there is a chamber containing 
images of Antinous; it is worth seeing 
for the stones with which it is adorned 
as well as for its paintings, most of 
which represent Antinous generally in 
the likeness of Dionysus.” An inscription 
on an architrave found at Mantinea re¬ 
cords the erection of a colonnade “For 
the city of Mantinea and for the native 
god Antinous” (Frazer, /. c., IV, p. 213). 

Thus we see that Mantinea was an im¬ 
portant, and probably the chief, center of 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 







MEDALLIONS 

9 

Antinous worship in Arcadia. How, 
then, are we to interpret the reverse 
type, a horse? It is not a Mantinean 
coin-type, but the horse symbolism is 
found in Arcadian myths of Demeter and 
Poseidon. Now the chief cult of Man- 
tinea was of Poseidon and the Mantin- 
eans wore the trident as a shield emblem 
(Frazer, l. c., IV, p. 217). A sanctuary 
of Poseidon Hippios was located near 
the city (/. c., IV, p. 216). Hence the 
reverse type may be most naturally 
understood as connected with Poseidon’s 
cult. 3 The inscription enables us to as¬ 
sign this piece to Arcadia, and the occur¬ 
rence of the Mantinean festival of 
Antinous together with the existence of 
the Mantinean cult of Poseidon, the 
Horse, are the determining points in es¬ 
tablishing Mantinea as the mint place. 

Antinous was one of the latest gods to 
be created for the Graeco-Roman pan¬ 
theon. The ultimate source of his di¬ 
vinity is to be sought in hero-worship 
and worship of the dead. Antinous died 
a premature and tragic death from 


AND MONOGRAPHS 









10 

ROMAN BRONZE 


drowning in the sacred waters of the 
Nile; hence his deification in a land 
where gods and superstition were innu¬ 
merable. Doubtless, however, his fame as 
a dead hero (he is called both Oeo?, “god 
or deified,” and Tjpa>s, “hero,” on the me¬ 
dallions) was the more easily secured 
and his divinity more readily acquiesced 
in, through the influence of emperor 
worship. Antinous was, one may say, 
adopted into the 'Imperial family of the 
divi, the dead emperors, who had been 
made gods. As Pausanias recounts, 
Hadrian built a temple to Antinous in 
Mantinea, and then caused him to be 
formally raised to the rank of a god 
(Spartianus, Hist. Emp. Hadrian, 14, 7; 
Eusebius, Chronicon, 127; Tertullian, 
Apologia, ch. 13). Antinoeia were cele¬ 
brated at Athens, Eleusis, Argos and 
Mantinea, and games called to, usyaXa 
’AvTtvoeta were held at Mantinea. These 
festivals continued long after his death, 
which occurred in 130 a. d., for an in¬ 
scription relating thereto is probably to 
be dated in the year 262 ( Pauly-Wissowa, 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 






MEDALLIONS 

II 

s. v., Antinoeia). The institution and 
spread of his cult, due originally to Ha¬ 
drian, could.only have been possible in an 
age when emperor worship had already 
become an integral part of the Roman re¬ 
ligion. However, there was no official 
recommendation of his apotheosis on the 
part of the Roman Senate, as was the case 
with the majority of Roman Emperors 
who were deified; nor do any of the 
medallions belong to the Roman imperial 
series. It was in Egypt the scene of his 
death, in Bithynium his native city, in 
Mantinea which colonized Bithynium, 
and in those cities which probably re¬ 
ceived special benefactions from Ha¬ 
drian, that the medallions were issued. 
This form of worship was naturally more 
congenial to the Oriental mind, and 
hence it is not surprising that the ma¬ 
jority of the medallions are found to 
have been struck in Egypt and in Asia, 
the land of the Diadochi, the heirs to 
Alexander’s kingdom, who inherited with 
political rights the tradition of the di¬ 
vinity of rulers established by Alexander. 


AND MONOGRAPHS 









12 

ROMAN BRONZE 


A symbol which appears on the coin¬ 
age of the Seleucid kings of Syria, 
namely, the star which is found over the 
head and on the ends of the diadem worn 
by Antiochus IV, who is styled Theos 
Epiphanes, “the god manifest,” on the 
coins, is employed also on the Antinous 
medallions as a sign of divinity (Blum, 
L c., PI. iv, 5, 6, 7—Tarsus). This is the 
symbol employed for the first Romans 
who were divinized—Julius Caesar and 
Augustus. 4 Another attribute of deifica¬ 
tion given to Antinous on the coins is the 
Egyptian crown, and his assimilation to 
various Greek gods, Dionysus, Pan and 
Apollo, indicate the syncretism of the 
period. 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 







MEDALLIONS 

13 

MEDALLION OF MARCUS AURELIUS, 

164 A.D. 

2. Obv. M. AVREL. ANTONINVS AVG. 

P. M. IMP. II. TR. P. XVIII. COS. III. 

M(arcus) Aurel(ius) Antoninus, 
Aug(ustus) p(ontifex) m(aximus), 
imp(erator) II tr(ibunicia) p(otestate) 
XVIII, co(n)s(ul) III. Bust of 
Marcus Aurelius in profile to the left, 
seen from the rear, bare-headed and 
bearded, wearing scaly cuirass and 
paludamentum : border of dots. 

Rev. No inscription. Figure of 
Salus standing to the right under an 
overhanging tree, left leg crossed over 
right, leaning on a table before her, on 
which is a statue of Hygieia. In her 
left hand she holds a patera from 
which she is feeding a serpent en¬ 
twined around the body of the statue. 
The serpent’s tail hangs down from the 
table, on which is a vase and a laurel 
garland; on the cross-bar is a bird 
(dove?). Border of dots. 


AND MONOGRAPHS 










14 

ROMAN BRONZE 


ZE medallion, 39 mm. 56 gr., dark 
green patination. Pierpont Morgan 
Coll., (formerly Martinetti-Nervegna 
Cat., PI. xxvi, 2172. Plate II. 

Gnecchi, Medaglioni Romani, No. 81, PI. 
66. 3. Cohen, Medailles Imperiales, p. 107, 
No. 1050. Other examples: (1) London; 
Grueber, Roman Medallions, No. 7, PI. xx, 
fig. x. (2) Paris; Froehner, Medallions 
romains, p. 88. Similar medallions with 
variations in the inscriptions and dates were 
issued under Marcus in the years 165, 177 
and 179 (Gnecchi, Nos. 21, 22 and 80). 
The present medallion is the first type, and 
was struck in 164. The reverse type is re¬ 
produced under Commodus (Gnecchi, PI. 
80-10). 

This reverse type is a most charming 
composition. It would take on a more 
vivid meaning if we were to regard the 
chief figure as representing the empress, 
perhaps in the guise of Venus (in accord 
with Froehner), rather than as an alle- 
gorial personification. The empress her¬ 
self, rather than the goddess Salus, nour¬ 
ishing Hygieia might indicate a special 
prayer for health in a critical period. 
But while the coiffure is similar to that 
worn by Faustina, yet the drapery would 
suggest rather the figure of a goddess. 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 












MEDALLIONS 

15 

The suggestion of Froehner that the fig¬ 
ure is Faustina in the pose and dress of 
Venus is fairly acceptable. This type 
was first used under M. Aurelius in 164, 
but was repeated later in the years 165, 
177 and 179. Now, Faustina Junior died 
in 175. In spite of this one might, of 
course, assume that the issues of the 
years 177 and 179 offer no insurmounta¬ 
ble objections to the interpretation of the 
figure as Faustina. Once the type was 
created, it might have been merely 
copied. However, though Salus is often 
represented on coins fully draped, where 
she stands or sits with patera in hand 
near an altar encoiled by a serpent (the 
inscription Salvs, frequently accom¬ 
panying the figure and leaving no doubt 
as to the identification), still on certain 
medallions, notably two of Faustina’s 
own, we find the semi-nude figure as the 
Salus type (Gnecchi, PI. 67, 3 and PL 
69, 2). Under Lucius Verus also, rep¬ 
resentations of Salus (Gnecchi, PI. 72, 8, 
Salvs in the exergue; idem , PI. 75, 4, 
Salus standing, holding a serpent in her 


AND MONOGRAPHS 











i6 

ROMAN BRONZE 


arms facing ^Esculapius) show the same 
semi-nude figure. 

It is in the pose of the figure as a whole 
that the clue to its meaning lies. The 
type of a semi-nude figure of Salus stand¬ 
ing to the right, with left fore-leg 
crossed over the right, appears on a me¬ 
dallion of Pius on which Salus is stand¬ 
ing in precisely this attitude while con¬ 
versing with ZEsculapius (seated) ; also 
on the medallions struck by Hadrian 
(Gnecchi, PI. 147, 9) and Antoninus, 
Pius (Gnecchi, PI. 149, 5 to 7). On Ha¬ 
drian’s piece the figure stands near a 
garlanded altar inscribed Salvs, to the 
right of which is a tree entwined by a 
serpent which she is nourishing. This 
seems to be the simpler type, probably 
an earlier one, preceding the more de¬ 
veloped type of our medallion. Two 
of Antoninus’ medallions have this same 
type Gn. 149, 5 and 6), while a third 
(Gn., PI. 149, 7) has on the altar (or 
table) a serpent-entwined statuette, while 
behind the Salus figure is a tree. Unfor¬ 
tunately, this last medallion has been 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 






MEDALLIONS 

1 7 

“miserably retouched and re-cut/’ so that 
we should not lay much stress on details 
of the type. However, it seems clearly 
a forerunner of the Faustina type 
in question, and those types of Hadrian 
and Antoninus showing Salus standing 
before a tree and altar feeding a serpent 
wound about the tree, appear to be the 
earlier development. The medallion of 
Pius (Gnecchi, PI. 149, 7) seems in fact 
to have a type quite similar to Faustina’s 
piece, which has been reworked; the so- 
called altar seems to be a table, and on it 
is a vase similar to that on Faustina’s 
medallion. 

This evolution of the type explains our 
medallion with its dual representation of 
Salus and Hygieia—really identical con¬ 
cepts. The .simplest and original type is 
the one common on the ordinary coins, 
Salus before an altar feeding a serpent. 
The more complicated and developed type 
shows Salus before altar and tree with 
serpent. In the last development, of 
which the medallions of Pius and Faus¬ 
tina Junior are examples, the tree is be- 


AND MONOGRAPHS 









i8 

ROMAN BRONZE 

• 

hind the figure of Salus, and the simple 
altar is a table on which is a statuette of 
the Health deity entwined by the serpent. 
Thus the laurel garland on the table is 
explained as a survival from the laurel 
decked altar. 

The chief figure is undoubtedly Salus, 
and the statuette is not yEscu-lapius as 
Gnecchi twice calls it (Vol. I, Marcus 
Aurelius, Nos. 21, 22, and Vol. Ill, 
Antoninus Pius, No. 149), but Hygieia. 
This duplication of the concept in human 
figure and statue arises from the further 
evolution of the type. Salus may be rep¬ 
resented with her attribute, the serpent, 
which is the health giving numen. She 
is represented as feeding her serpent at 
an altar which is therefore her own altar. 
Hence she may as a human personifica¬ 
tion feed her serpent entwined about her 
own figure as an agalma. 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 






MEDALLIONS 

19 

MEDALLION OF LUCIUS VERUS 

166 A.D. 

3. Obv. L. VERVS AVG. ARM. PARTII. 
max. L(ucius) Verus, Aug(ustus) 
Arm(eniacus), Parth(icns) Max(imus). 
Laureated bust of Lucius Verus to the 
right, bearded, wearing paludamentum 
and cuirass: border of dots. 

Rev. TR. P. VI. IMP. IIII. COS. II. 
Tr(ibunicia) p(otestate) VI imp(er- 
ator) (IV), co(n)s(ul) II. Lucius 
Verus standing to the left on a plat¬ 
form with the praetorian prefect 
slightly behind him; a soldier at guard 
stands on the ground at the right of 
the platform. Verus wears a cuirass 
and paludamentum, which is thrown 
back over left shoulder. His right 
hand is raised in the attitude of ad¬ 
dress. Below, facing the platform 
stands a group of four Roman soldiers 
in full armour, with shields, crested hel¬ 
mets and military standards. Between 
Verus and the soldiers stands a figure 


AND MONOGRAPHS 











20 

ROMAN BRONZE 


in Roman dress, apparently that of a 
youth and hence probably the youthful 
brother and heir of the Emperor, Corn- 
modus. 

y£ medallion, 39 mm. 45 gr. (re¬ 
touched), dark green patination. Pier- 
pont Morgan Coll, (formerly Martin- 
etti-Nervegna Coll., PI. xxvii, 2254). 

Plate III. 

Cf. Cohen, p. 96, No. 288. Four other 
examples are cited by Gnecchi, under No. 
14, PI. 74. A similar example with details 
of the reverse uncertain, is in the Vienna 
Cabinet (Gnecchi, PI. 75-10). 

The principal point of interest about 
this medallion is the identification of the 
central figure of the reverse group. 
Cohen and also Sambon (Martinetti Cata¬ 
logue) describe the reverse subject as 
Lucius Verus presenting the King of the 
Parthians to the legion. Gnecchi writes 
“King of the Parthians or Medes (or 
perhaps better, little Commodus).” The 
Roman dress worn by the small figure 
indicates that it is not a Parthian who 
stands before the soldiers. Commodus 
was a youth of five years in 166 a.d., 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 








MEDALLIONS 

21 

when the medallion was struck, and 
though so young, yet received in this 
year the title of Caesar. 

The reverse composition is similar to 
the commoner Adlocvtio, Fides Exer- 
cit(uum) and Fidei Milit(um) types, 
a series in which the emperor, accom¬ 
panied usually by the prefect of the 
praetorian cohort and a body guard, 
stands upon a platform and harangues 
a group of soldiers bearing standards. 
These addresses to the army took place 
on certain important occasions—as, for 
instance, when the Caesar was elected 
to succeed the Emperor, when the latter 
departed for some military expedition, 
or returned, and when there was a review 
of the troops. We have already indi¬ 
cated what the significance of the reverse 
is here. Hence, the medallion refers to 
a definite event, and may be described, 
as historical medals are classified, 
“presentation of Commodus (as Caesar) 
to the Army by Lucius Verus, 166 a.d.” 

The obverse portrait is one of the 
finest in Roman medallic history. Verus 


AND MONOGRAPHS 








22 

ROMAN BRONZE 


wore his beard long, had considerable 
height, strongly modelled features and 
deep-set eyes, all of which combined to 
give to his appearance an impression of 
majesty. In character he fell far short 
of achieving greatness. The titles of 
Armeniacus and Parthicus Maximus 
were bestowed upon him after the suc¬ 
cessful conclusion of the wars in Ar¬ 
menia and Parthia in 166, in which his 
general, Cassius, had played the active 
part, Verus having left the campaign to 
go to Ephesus to meet his bride, Lucilla. 
On his return to Rome he received with 
Marcus Aurelius the honors of a triumph 
which were but little deserved. 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 







MEDALLIONS 

23 

MEDALLION OF LUCILLA, WIFE OF 

LUCIUS . VERUS, 164-169 a.d. 

4 . Obv. LUCILLAE AVG. ANTON INI 
avg. f. Lucillae Aug(ustae), Antonini 
Aug(nsti) f(iliae). “To Lucilla Au¬ 
gusta, daughter of Antoninus Augus¬ 
tus.” Bust of Lucilla to the right, 
draped; her hair in low knot; border of 
dots. 

Rev. No inscription. Lucilla (or 
Faustina) wearing tunic and peplum 
standing to the right and handing a 
group-statuette of the Three Graces 
to a seated figure of Vesta. The latter, 
fully draped, is seated on a high-backed 
throne, wears a diadem and carries a 
scepter in her left hand; her feet rest 
on a foot-stool. On the cross-piece of 
the throne is a pellet. Border of dots. 

7 E medallion, 37 mm. 47.24 gr. fine 
patination. Unique. Pierpont Mor¬ 
gan Coll. (Formerly Martinetti-Ner- 
vegna Coll., PI. xxviii, 2277. Gnecchi, 
No. 10, PI. 76, 7. Plate IV. 


AND MONOGRAPHS 







24 

ROMAN BRONZE 

' 

The subject of the reverse would ap¬ 
pear to be a simple allegorical scene 
depicting the Empress standing before a 
seated goddess, who seems to be Vesta, 
and presenting to her a group of three 
diminutive figures, which resembles the 
group of the Three Graces. Sig. G. 
Pansi, however, has suggested a novel 
interpretation of the scene (Riv. Ital., 
1920, p. 163)—a ceremonial presentation 
to a maternity goddess, Juno or Venus, 
of the three children of Lucilla. Lucilla, 
to be sure, is not known to have had any 
children by Lucius Verus, but since 
Fecunditas types appear on her coinage 
(Cohen Nos. 18-26, coins; No. 104, me¬ 
dallion) as on those of the two Faustinas 
preceding her, it is argued that the coins 
themselves prove that she did have chil¬ 
dren. Cohen, too, comments on the 
Fecunditas as well as on the Juno Lucina 
types of her coinage as apparently indi¬ 
cating that Lucilla had offspring, al¬ 
though there is no mention of this fact 
in the history of Lucius Verus. 

But although the strength of Sig. 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 






MEDALLIONS 

25 

Pansi’s argument is readily to be seen 
and admitted when we examine the gold 
and silver coins of Lucilla and the bronze 
medallions ('Cohen, No. 104 and Gnecchi, 
PI. 76, 2, formerly Wiczay) bearing the 
usual Fecunditas types (which occur 
first under Faustina Senior), still it does 
not follow that our present type is neces¬ 
sarily an allusion to Fecunditas. 

Sig. Pansi most ingenuously argues 
that as the Fecunditas coinage shows but 
three infants about Lucilla, this particu¬ 
lar type on the medallion is a direct 
allusion to the whole offspring of Lucilla. 
This is a fair argument and would be 
most convincing if it were not for the 
fact that the reverse of Lucilla’s me¬ 
dallion is an exact copy of one issued by 
the preceding Empress, Faustina Junior, 
her mother (Cohen, 29i=Grueber, Ro¬ 
man Medallions, PI. xxiv, 3). The head¬ 
dress of the empress, her portraiture 
and pose are exactly the same on both 
medallions. The Faustina medallion in 
the British Museum, which is as unique 
of Faustina as this one is of Lucilla, has 


AND MONOGRAPHS 







26 

ROMAN BRONZE 


a less well-preserved reverse than Lu- 
cilla’s piece, but judging from the repro¬ 
duction on the plate in the B. M. Cat., 
the two reverses might be from the same 
die. Lucilla, therefore, did not create 
this reverse type to express a different 
and original rendering of the Fecunditas 
idea. And as Faustina’s proles numbered 
seven or more, it is hardly to be claimed 
that Faustina intended it in any such 
sense. In fact, it may be that we should 
be more correct in our description of the 
reverse, if, with Gnecchi (who recog¬ 
nized the community of reverses), we 
describe the standing figure as Faustina. 
The three puttini are too diminutive to 
afford any help in solving the problem. 
The seated goddess is described by 
Cohen and Gnecchi (under Faustina) as 
Vesta veiled. The figure certainly is 
closely similar to the seated Vestas on 
Faustina Senior’s Medallions (Gnecchi, 
PI. 57, 7 and 9), and from this compari¬ 
son the identity of the figure as Vesta 
seems certain. Pansi wanted to identify 
the seated goddess as Venus or Juno. 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 






MEDALLIONS 

27 

On the whole, it would seem more 
reasonable to follow the established in¬ 
terpretation of the scene as of a general 
allegorical' nature. One cannot deny, 
however, that Lucilla’s coinage does seem 
to indicate that she had offspring by 
Lucius Verus. On a bronze medallion 
in Milan, published by Gnecchi, PI. 
76, 2, the seated figure which would 
naturally be taken for that of the em¬ 
press is represented as nursing an infant 
which she holds in her arms, and the 
piece is inscribed Fecunditati Augustae. 
It would be quite artificial to interpret 
all of Lucilla’s Fecunditas types as re¬ 
ferring to her mother. Faustina Junior, 
since the latter issued abundant coinage of 
this type herself. But it is to be doubted 
whether we have any reason for reading 
into the scene of presentation on the 
piece before us, the idea of Fecunditas, 
and the identification of the seated figure 
as Vesta is decidedly against Sig. Pansi’s 
ingenious and interesting theory, as is 
also the pre-existence of this identical 
type under Faustina Junior. 


A N D MONOGRAPHS 











28 

ROMAN BRONZE 


MEDALLION OF LUCILLA, WIFE OF 
LUCIUS VERUS, 164-169 A.D. 

5 . LVCILLAE AVG. ANTONINI AVG. F. 
Lucillae Aug(ustae), Antonini 
Aug(usti) f(iliae). “To Lucilla Au¬ 
gusta, daughter of Antoninus Augus¬ 
tus/’ Bust of Lucilla to r., entirely 
similar to that of medallion No. 4, but 
different die. 

Rev. venvs. Venus standing fac¬ 
ing head to 1., holding scepter in 1. 
hand, and with right hand around neck 
of wingless Cupid who looks towards 
her, and holds an arrow in uplifted 
right; in lowered left, a bit of drapery; 
at the right, a burning altar. 

7 E medallion, 40 mm. 48.90 gr. 
American Numismatic Society. Other 
examples, Cohen, 76, and Gnecchi, No. 
5, and PI. 76, 3. Plate V. 

This is another example of a well- 
known reverse type issued under Lucilla. 
Froehner regarded this allegorical pic¬ 
ture of Venus and Cupid as symbolic of 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 






MEDALLIONS 

29 

the Empress and her son. As admitted 
above, there seems every probability 
from the coinage that Lucilla had issue 
by her marriage with Lucius Verus, and 
there is, therefore, no objection to this 
interpretation which, however, can re¬ 
main only a supposition. The fact, 
however, that Cupid is here without 
wings, while usually he is depicted with 
them on Antonine medallions, may be 
said to strengthen this hypothesis. 

ft 


AND MONOGRAPHS 







30 

ROMAN BRONZE 


MEDALLION OF GORDIANUS III PIUS 

242 A.D. 

6 . Obv. IMP. GORDIANVS PIVS FELIX 
avg. Imp(erator) Gordianus Pius, 
Felix, Aug(ustus). Bust of Gordianus 
Pius, laureate, draped and with cuirass 
to the left, seen from the rear. Border 
of dots. 

Rev. victo-ria avg., Victoria 
Aug(usti). A temple of the Doric 
order, with four columns visible, form¬ 
ing a portico above which is a pedi¬ 
ment. In the interior is a standing 
figure of Mars, and a grille is visible 
half-way down the interior and inner 
columns on both sides. On the pedi¬ 
ment, above which rises the dome, 
is the inscription N(*IKH, and on the 
frieze OIIAO^OPOG (Nixtj 671X09690;, 
“The Warrior Victory’’). At the 
right stands the Emperor as chief 
pontiff, veiled, sacrificing at a lighted 
altar, accompanied by three attendants 
bearing long, curving spears. At the 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 







MEDALLIONS 

3 i 

left of the temple is a popa (a priest’s 
assistant, who conducted the victim to 
sacrifice) with raised axe about to slay 
a bull, and at the extreme left a vic- 
timarius (assistant at sacrifice, who 
slew the victim). Border of dots. 

JE medallion, 38 mm. 47.60 gr. Pier- 
pont Morgan Coll, (formerly Martin- 
etti-Nervegna Coll., PI. xxxiii, 2268— 
Gnecchi, No. 50, PI. 106, 4. Plate VI. 

Varieties of this medallion are de¬ 
scribed by Gnecchi, Nos. 49, 51, 52. 
This piece seems to be the only one 
so far published with the obverse type, 
bust to left, seen from rear. It is there¬ 
fore a unique piece. The obverse un¬ 
fortunately needs cleaning. 

This piece has the special interest of 
referring to an historical event and bear¬ 
ing an architectural type. Also, the oc¬ 
currence of a Greek inscription on a 
Roman medallion is a rare phenomenon— 
“the only case,” Cohen says. The in¬ 
ference from the Greek inscription 
naturally is that the temple here shown 
was built to commemorate a military 


AND MONOGRAPHS 








3 2 

ROMAN BRONZE 


victory of Gordianus in Asia and was 
erected not in Rome, but in a Greek city. 
Gnecchi has misread or misprinted the 
third letter in the adjective as A in place 
of A, making an impossible word of it. 
The adjective may be compared with 
Bopucpopo?, one who bears a spear. 
oTtXocpopoi; means “one who bears arms,” 
a “warrior or soldier.” A medallion of 
similar type of Gordianus (Cohen, 378; 
Gnecchi, No. 53), bears the inscription 
©COC OIIAO<I>OPOC, “The Warrior 
God,” hence it seems correct to regard 
the statue in the interior of the temple 
as representing Mars, rather than Vic¬ 
tory (so also Grueber). From a com¬ 
parison of the figure on the similar me¬ 
dallion, the figure, small though it is, 
seems to be certainly that of Mars. Both 
these titles, “Warrior Victory” and 
“Warrior God” are unusual. 

The victory which the medallion com¬ 
memorates is referred by Cohen to the 
campaign in the East, in 242 a.d., in 
which Gordianus took command in per¬ 
son against the Sassanians of Persia, 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 






MEDALLIONS 

33 

who had committed aggressions against 
the Roman provinces on the frontier. It 
seems probable that the medallion refers 
to this campaign. It was the only im¬ 
portant achievement of Gordianus’ reign. 
It was also a very considerable victory, 
for Shapur I having invaded Mesopo¬ 
tamia was threatening the Roman fron¬ 
tier, and had already occupied Antioch 
in Syria. Gordianus took a very large 
army, and reconquered Antioch and some 
cities of Mesopotamia. A number of me¬ 
dallions and coins relate to this victory, 
notably the type with Gordianus in mili¬ 
tary dress on horseback, preceded by a 
figure of Victory, and followed by sol¬ 
diers with military standards (Cohen, 
379 )- 

• 

AND MONOGRAPHS 








34 

ROMAN BRONZE 


NOTES ON MEDALLION OF MANTINEA, 

ARCADIA 

1 Hadrian founded a city on the Nile near the 
scene of Antinous’ fatal end, calling it “Anti- 
noupolis.” 

2 An inscription found at Olympia mentions 
the great games of Antinous which may be the 
Mantinean games. (Frazer, op. cit. iv, p. 213 .) 

3 Another view is that of Dietrichson, Antinous, 
quoted by Blum ( Journ. Internat., 1914 , p. 38 ) 
who connects the horse type with the race courses 
at the Antinoeia. 

NOTE ON THE STAR AS A SYMBOL OF DEIFICATION 

4 An even earlier instance for coins of the 
Roman period, however, is that on the Asiatic 
coinage of Pompey the Great, struck in the re¬ 
founded city of Soli, in Cilicia, which was re¬ 
named Pompeiopolis ( B. M. Cat. Galatia, etc., 
PI. xxvii, 2 ). The obverse bears the head of 
Pompey enclosed in a filleted border; before 
the head is a large star and a lituus, and be¬ 
hind, an object which is possibly a sacrificial 
ewer (B. M. Cat., p. 152, Note 2). The sym¬ 
bols are, therefore, emblems of religious office 
and a star. The coin is dated on the reverse in 
the year 19-16=51-50 b.c., and was conse¬ 
quently struck during his lifetime, since he was 
killed in 48 b.c. Antony and Caesar also were 
deified at the time of their pro-consulship in 
Asia, as was also Titus Quinctius Flamininus 
in Macedonia. The significance of the star ac¬ 
companying Pompey’s head on the coin of Soli- 
Pompeiopolis is, therefore, perfectly clear. 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 











MEDALLIONS 


35 


Hill (Historical Greek Coins, p. 168) discusses 
the star on this coin and refers to its use on 
the earlier coins of Soli as a symbol and as 
a type on the coins of Pompeiopolis, but he 
says, “Its especial significance here is obscure.” 
Moreover, there is an additional symbol of dei¬ 
fication on this piece, namely, the filleted border 
enclosing the head. Babelon (Les Rois de 
Syrie, p. lxxvi, f.) has shown that this border 
on the coins of the Seleucid kings, derived 
from the sacred woolen fillet of Apollo, re¬ 
calls their divine origin as sons of Apollo. 
This fillet is commonly used on the coinage of 
Antiochus III, at a time when the principle of 
the worship of the reigning monarch was 
already firmly established as part of the state 
religion—its earliest use is under Antiochus 
II. It has been most interestingly shown by 
Macdonald (Coin Types, p. 148, f. 4) how 
portraiture and deification went hand in hand 
on post-Alexandrine coins. Burgon even went 
so far as to maintain that portraiture alone was 
evidence per se of deification. There cannot 
therefore be the shadow of a doubt as to the 
star symbol on the coin of Pompey and the 
medallions of Antinous being a sign of deifi¬ 
cation. 

When we turn to the consideration of the 
original intent of the symbol, a very wide field 
of investigation is opened up. One of the most 
difficult questions which presents itself for de¬ 
cision at the outset, is whether the Romans bor¬ 
rowed this symbol from the East. An early 
occurrence in the eastern part of the Empire 
is that just mentioned of Pompey’s coin 
struck in Cilicia in 51-50 b.c. As a symbol of 


AND MONOGRAPHS 











36 

ROMAN BRONZE 


deification, the star is very widespread on coins 
struck in the East. The Seleucid kings of 
Syria, the Parthian kings, Orodes I and 
Phraates IV. .used it. Tigranes of Armenia, 
96-95 b.c., the,last ruler of the Seleucid king¬ 
dom, 83-69 b.c., employed it as an emblem 
placed between two eagles on his royal tiara. 
The Oriental symbolism may be safely predi¬ 
cated for the origin of the symbol on Pompey’s 
coin. However, the history of the star on the 
coinage commemorative of Julius Caesar, where 
it was first used by the Romans as a deification 
symbol, namely, by M. Agrippa in 38 b.c. 

(aureus in Paris with star above the head of 
a youthful, divinized Julius Caesar, and reverse, 
M. AGRIPPA COS. DESIG., Cohen, 33), 
seems to suggest another origin. For on the 
coins struck by P. Sepullius Macer in 44 b.c. 

( B . M. Cat., Coins of Roman Republic, PI. 
liv, 15-17), presumably before the death of 
Caesar, a very conspicuous star is placed be¬ 
hind the head of Caesar on the obverse, and a 
small star is found at the end of the sceptre 
of Venus on the reverse. Now, these stars 
perhaps have nothing to do with deification, but 
are merely allusions to the star of the goddess 
Venus, the protecting divinity of the Julian 
family. It may therefore be inferred that when 
Agrippa placed a star above the deified Julius’ 
head on his coin of 38 b.c., he was employing 
the symbol as a distinguishing emblem of 
Caesar’s family, connecting him with the gods, 
without in any way following a symbolism long 
established in the East. Thus the symbol may 
have had a quite independent origin in Roman 
tradition, and this seems more plausible. Hence, 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 







MEDALLIONS 

3 7 

we must not lay too much stress on the simul¬ 
taneous occurrence of both the star and the 
radiate crown on the coinage struck by Tiberius 
and Caligula and others in honor of Divus Au¬ 
gustus, and on- the much earlier Greek coinage 
of Antiochus IV of Syria. As evidence of the 
actual origin of the Roman symbolism, Babelon, 

(Rois de Syria, p. xciii) says, “Les Romains 
emprunterent ce symbole de la deification ( i.e. 
the star ) aux Orientaux, et nous rapellerons Ic 
sidus Iulium que, sur les monnaies romaines, 
brille au-dessus du front de Jules Cesar di¬ 
vinise.” The Roman symbol seems rather to 
have been at first the star of Venus Genetrix, 
from whom Julius Caesar claimed to be de¬ 
scended through his supposed ancestor, ^Eneas, 
whereas the Seleucid star seems rather to sym¬ 
bolize the ruler’s claim to have become the god 
Apollo, which is certainly the significance of 
the radiate crown. Augustus, himself, was a 
most assiduous devotee of the cult of Apollo 
and the Apolline head with the rayed crown 
was a familiar Republican coin type. Of 
course, it is simple enough to argue that the 
precedent set by Antiochus IV for the use of 
the rayed crown may have been familiar to the 
successors of Augustus who wished to portray 
him as a divinized being on their coins. And 
if this be so, the star symbolism used by this 
Seleucid king must also have been known. 
But as the use of the star symbol alone on 
Roman coins precedes the use of the rayed 
crown, we may really have here a double origin. 
The star of Venus on the coins struck to com¬ 
memorate the deified Julius Caesar was later 
combined with the Apolline emblem, the rayed 


AND MONOGRAPHS 








3 « 

ROMAN BRONZE 

- . 

crown, on the coins struck in honor of the dei¬ 
fied Augustus—bronze coins inscribed Divus 
Augustus Pater, so that quite probably the 
original sense of the symbol as the Julian star 
was lost, and replaced by the Oriental mean¬ 
ing of the star as sun. This was the signifi¬ 
cance of the star symbolism in the East, as is 
apparent from its early and later history on 
coins of the East. This is, of course, the 
meaning in the better-known combined symbol 
of star and crescent (sun and moon), the old 
Persian (Mithraic) symbol. 

In conclusion, it may be noted that the star 
is found on Roman coins struck by Augustus 
in honor of Divus Julius, and on coins of Ti¬ 
berius and Caligula in honor of Divus Au¬ 
gustus. Caligula honored his sister Drusilla 
with the star on a coin struck in Apamea, 
Bithynia, (Babelon, Recueil gen. des monn. gr., 
PI. xxxviii, 11), and Divus Julius is also fig¬ 
ured with a star above the head at Apamea 
(J 5 . M. Cat., PI. xxv, io). The star, however, 
is not often found in the Roman series, nor on 
Greek imperial coins after the time of Caligula. 
An interesting later occurrence is on the rare 
aureus of Hadrian, struck in honor of his dead 
parents, Trajan and Plotina, the star appearing 
above the head of each on the reverse, which 
bears the inscription DIVIS PARENTIBUS, 
“To the deified parents” (Cohen, II, p. 246, 
no. 1). 

Most interesting is the latter day recurrence 
of this -tery ancient star symbol on the me¬ 
dallions of Napoleon I, which are replete with 
classical symbolism and types. The star ap¬ 
pears above the head of Napoleon (Millin, 


NUMISMATIC NOTES 






MEDALLIONS 

39 

Histoire Metallique de Napoleon, 1819. PI. 
xlviii, 236) exactly as it is found above the 
heads of Julius Caesar and Augustus on Roman 
coins. . It also appears in the field behind the 
head on a m^dal on which Napoleon is repre¬ 
sented with the features of Augustus (/. c., PI. 
xvi, 36; cf., another medal on the same plate, 
No. 72, for an Augustan type of head). In 
fact, the star of Napoleon became an emblem 
of auspicious omen on his medals (/. c., PI. 
xxxii, 88, a genius guided “par l’etoile de Na¬ 
poleon I”). That Napoleon’s star also signified 
the sun seems pretty clearly indicated by a 
medal (/. c., PI. vii, 241), on which is repre¬ 
sented a distant view of the Alps, above which 
the sun, and in its disk, the star of Napoleon. 
As it is perfectly obvious that the medallists of 
Napoleon’s time drew their inspiration from 
classical coins, copying both Greek and Roman 
designs, legends and ideas, the star of Napoleon 
is a palpable revival of the Julian and Au¬ 
gustan emblem. 


AND MONOGRAPHS 




































































































ROMAN MEDALLIONS 


Plate I 




Medallion of Antinous Mantinea 





ROMAN MEDALLIONS 


Plate II 




Medallion of Marcus Aurelius 






PUBLICATIONS 


Edward T. Newell. The Alexandrine Coinage 
of Sinope. 1919. 11 pages. 2 plates. 

$2.50. 

Edward T. Newell. Myriandros—Alexandria 
Kat’isson. 1920. 42 pages. 2 plates. 

$3.00. 

Agnes Baldwin. The Electrum and Silver 
Coins of Chios. 1915. 60 pages. 7 

plates. $2.00. 

Robert W. McLachlan. The Copper Tokens 
of Upper Canada. 4 plates. $3.50. 

Eugene G. Courteau. The Wellington Tokens 
relating to Canada. 2 plates. $2.00. 


Numismatic Notes and Monographs 

1. Sydney P. Noe. Coin Hoards. 1921. 

47 pp. 6 pi. 50c. 

2. Edward T. Newell. Octobols of His- 

tiaea. 1921. 25 pp. 2 pi. 50c. 

3. Edward T. Newell. Alexander Hoards 

—Introduction and Kyparissia Hoard. 
1921. 21 pp. 2 pi. 50c. 

4. Howland Wood. The Mexican Revolu¬ 

tionary Coinage, 1913-1916. 1921. 44 
pp. 26 pi. $2.00. 


0 034 076 556.4 


Numismatic Notes and Monographs 

(Continued) 

5. Leonidas Westervelt. The Jenny Lind 

Medals and Tokens. 1921. 25 pp. 9 
pi. 50c. 

6. Agnes Baldwin. Five Roman Gold Me¬ 

dallions. 1921. 103 pp. 8 pi. $1.50. 

7. Sydney P. Noe. Medallic Work of A. A. 

Weinman. 1921. 31pp. 17 pi. $1.00. 

8. Gilbert S. Perez. The Mint of the Philip¬ 

pine Islands. 1921. 8 pp. 4 pi. 50c. 

9. David Eugene Smith, LL.D. Computing 

Jetons. 1921. 70 pp. 25 pi. $1.50. 

10. Edward T. Newell. The First Seleucid 

Coinage of Tyre. 1921. 40 pp. 8 pi. 

$ 1 . 00 . 

11. Harrold E. Gillingham. French Orders 

and Decorations. 1922. 110 pp. 35 

pi. $2.00. 

12. Howland Wood. Gold Dollars of 1858. 

1922. 7 pp. 2 pi. 50c. 

13. R. B. Whitehead. Pre-Mohammedan 

Coinage of N. W. India. 1922. 56 

pp. 15 pi. $2.00. 

14. George F. Hill. Attambelos I of 

Characene. 1922. 12 pp. 3 pi. $1.00. 

15. M. P. Vlasto. Taras Oikistes, (A Contri¬ 

bution to Tarentine Numismatics). 
1922. 234 pp. 13 pi. $3.50. 

16. Howland Wood. Commemorative Coin¬ 

age of United States. 1922. 63 pp. 

7 pi. $1.50. 







